Â
Â
When we seek for connection, we restore the world to wholeness. Our seemingly separate lives become meaningful as we discover how truly necessary we are to each other.
Margaret Wheatley
Â
Â
Sebastian Junger has been making the rounds of the talk shows promoting his new book “Warâ€. The essential theme of his book examines the deep connection that a platoon of soldiers stationed at a remote outpost in Afghanistan feel for each other. Under persistant attack, the soldiers come to depend on each other and learn to recognize the essential part that each plays in their ongoing struggle to survive. The bond of belonging becomes so strong that when the soldiers are removed from their band of brothers, they lust to return.Â
Â
Â
A recent article on the Huffington Post uses Junger’s premise as a jumping off point to examine some of the connections that unemployed persons have developed to help them survive the current economic downturn. Among the more interesting to me, are those that have become involved with or initiated volunteer efforts to help others. These efforts do not address the serious financial problems that many of these people face but rather the emotional need for meaningfulness and purpose in their lives. They need connection.
Â
I observed this phenomenon at work a few years ago in the aftermath of Hurricane Ike. People came together to work for the common good without question or hesitation. We did not pause to examine skin color or economic status or sexual preference in choosing who to help. For a few weeks the differences that separate us slipped away into the shadows of our common need.
Â
Human beings are adept at finding connection on a small scale. We connect to family, co-workers, classmates, neighbors and the congregations of our churches with little effort. In times of shared hardship we see the circles of connection expand and even cross boundaries that sometimes seem insurmountable during the good times.
Â
Â
But when faced with the big issues we retreat into separation. We have no problem with offering a hand to the unemployed neighbor across the street while objecting to an extension of unemployment benefits that would help a million others just like him.Â
Â
The theme of separation vs. connection to god and to each other has surfaced many times on LYR and is a common theme among authors in the realm of “New Age Spiritualityâ€.  Christianity challenges us to “love our neighbor as ourselves†as in the parable of the Good Samaritan. We rise to the occasion to help a person in need but retreat when faced with helping a people in need.  As we wrestle with controversial global issues like climate change, energy, fresh water and famine, we will need to embrace connection over separation, co-operation over competition on a grand scale.Â
Â
Â
Is the necessary sense of connection even possible on a large scale?
Â
Is our sense of connection limited by our tribal past to a local boundary?
Â
Â
Can we expand our thinking to recognize conceptual threats to our collective well-being?
Â
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine
Â
What Soldiers at War Can Teach Us About Surviving Financial WarfareÂ
please visit the Losing Your Religion home page
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978236655#cid-1688849885326171
This is a Gather forum for discussing religion and spirituality.  Sharing our spiritual beliefs is one small step towards building a better world.Â
This ongoing discussion began in June, 2008 with the publication of the Losing Your Religion Series.
The discussion rules are the same as on earlier posts:
1. Share your spiritual and religious beliefs in this moderated atmosphere, but respect the beliefs of other participants.
Â
 2. LISTEN carefully and try to see other participants' points of view, no matter how different from your own.
 3. Please don't "preach" or attempt to convert anyone else to your viewpoint.
Facilitators: Ann M., Shira, Sy G.,  WM (Bill) H.
Episode Â
Photo Credits:Â Thanks to Boris G. for keeping this series supplied with great images.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 260
Our society is so large today it's mind-boggling and often frightening. It seems like the larger our community. the larger the "enemy" we require to unite us. The only time I've felt the USA to be a cohesive society was in the few weeks after 9/11. (I'm guessing it was also fairly cohesive during the World Wars, though).
At the same time we are closer than we have ever been. I have over 500 Facebook connections about a third of whom live outside the US. Many of their comments pop up in languages I don't even recognize. One young lady has been posting comments about the ongoing unrest in Thailand. Her comments reflect her gut level reaction to what is going on rather than a news summary.
Think about how "connected" we were to events in Iran last summer largely through comments from ordinary people on various social networks rather than from traditional news outlets.
the world is smaller than its ever been.
Also, it's been shown in more than one study that our minds are capable of "knowing" only about 150 people at a time. This became clear to me on Gather-- as my friends list approached 200, I began to find it impossible to keep track of everyone.
Social media has allowed me to re-connect with friends from the past that I thought I had lost forever. And even though we haven't spoken face to face in years there is a common bond that emerged almost instantaneously upon reconnection.
This is a phenomenon that is in rapid transition. The future may bring a time when those 150 folks I "know" are spread over the entire planet rather than concentrated within a few square miles of my domicile.
Good point. One would think that would have an anti-war effect for those of us who've never experienced a war on our own soil.
Rick Pitino,
Be careful here. Darwinian evolution is concerned only with survival and propagation of the gene pool. It has no interest in spiritual development beyond serving the purpose of biological survival.
I have written before that we have entered a stage of technological and cultural development that makes biological evolution irrelevant. Our collective future will be determined by conscious decisions we make both individually and collectively and not by natural selection at the genetic level.
I submit that the spirit is as much part of our holistic being as our physical self. Those without spirit seem to have less survivability than those who care for their spirit, mentally and physically. Evolutionary adaptations are successful if they work, serve a purpose in surviving, not totally uninterested in that holistic development. Regression of social progress may be possible, returns to darker ages, but I don't think evolution of physical devlopments is in the cards.
I agree with the second paragraph of your comments. Physical evolutionary modifications may not be as evident as what's happening interiorly and collectively in our brains and psyche it seems.
Yes, Liz often mentioned this. I wonder where she is-- I miss her!
Where we supposedly have it over chimps and "the state of nature" is our ability to create beyond our immediate situation thus that we can speak not only of biological evolution, but also cultural evolution. The hope is that we are evolving toward a more enlightened, less violent, state. Part of that process includes studying behaviors, making up our theories, looking for better methods of promoting positive social interaction. Or, of course, we could just find more efficient methods of violence and kill us off. Do we have an idea of what kind of mechanism is involved in how that decision is made?
Sure, it is either love or fear ... the love comes automatically with a true spirituality.
Taking a big gulp before tackling this really tough and important question:
1) I sometimes have the idea that humanity will get what it deserves and if we can't figure out how to solve our differences without violence and the waste of warfare, then so be it and we will all go to hell together.
2) There's the other side of me that sees that the family of nations is the best way to pushback against those who insist on violence, inequity, and selifish self-interest.
Besides involving actively in those agencies, measures and personal behavior that supports peacefulness, we can only hope personally and collectively that the pressures against those violators of human rights will work to bring them to heel and persuade them to see that war is a losers game where no one really wins, an exercise in testeronic belligerence to prove what?
There are those two concepts, the Life Force and the Death Wish, that seems to express the dual nature of human existence. How people come to ally themselves on one side or the other I don't think can be established. It does imply that there are those who would wish for destruction and death rather than promote life and contentment. There seems there's anger and bloodlust involved, doesn't it? The Hindi have Kali, the Death Wish personified.
I'm so prejudiced toward life and promoting it that I find it hard to understand Death Wishing. I seems pathologic and sick, IMO.
At this point in human evolution, I believe those who are the pioneers of evolutionary development are attempting to shape the planet for the kind of future they would want to inhabit in the hope that posterity will live in a bettered world hopefully having benefited from the efforts to clean the environment and atmosphere, to resolve how to settle interpersonal and international disputes peaceably, and to allow all inhabitants equality and the enjoyment of human rights. Continuing into the coming millennium, I see this as the agenda, spiritual/political or whatever, of humanity. Can we say that the American Experience and Experiment is the laboratory for the advancement of these ideals? We still experience pushback from those less enthusiastic of these ideas but it’s incumbent on those more concious to attempt to preserve and further the cause of human rights for all.
It seems the evolution of consciousness, indeed of humans continuing to exist on the planet in tolerable conditions, impinges on the signing on of the greater collecitve and connected part of humanity if those changes in collective behavior are to be effected. It looks to me a real-life cliffhanger to see whether humans will pony up and sign on to a change in status quo mindset or that natural, political stresses and inaction will win out?
Is there a way to forge strong connections among people who justifiably insist on the right to be very different from one another?
I guess I'd say that's the job of our government.
That's a much harder question. I can't answer it on a personal scale. On a societal scale, I only see large-scale unification if we have a common enemy to face.
Sounds like we need Klingons?
James, you have put your finger right on the essential question.
If we can conquer the seperation of distance we can eventually conquer the seperation of time.
PS: thanks for stopping by, I do enjoy your infrequent visits.
True. It seems as if most of us have to imagine our grandchildren in the scenario to make it real.
It would seem that signing on to something collectively should be perceived as having benefits to self-interest or be persuasively speaking to the benefit of the whole group, society or world. The more personal that perception is the better the chances are for cooperation.
In democratic countries and the US included, a charismatic leader helps a whole lot. Even as charismatic a leader as Obama is, he's having a hard time getting deniers and nay-sayers onboard programs. Things need to become really dire for there to happen a tipping point where a majority will be on to the program.
Part of the directives in our teacher manuals, one of the points listed for teachers to instill is the recognition of good ideas. Our current climate of cynicism and nay-saying partisan politics makes argument and objection the rule where it seems to have astute decision making dictates the need for looking at all sides and coming to conclusions based on that fact-finding process. Otherwise we behave like battling crabs cllawing our way to the top of the pile over any comers be can overcome.
Obama wouldn't be having a problem if he were white. In my mind's eye, all those racist folks, who never really participated in the voting process, came to life when they realized their laziness got them a black President. I think that's what the majority of the Tea Party is now. Anyone who thinks racism is not alive and well in this country is only fooling themselves.
I think all presidents have a hard time "selling" their proposals. But, that said, my inner Jungian says a lot of people are projecting their shadow self onto our president:
In Jungian psychology, the shadow or "shadow aspect" is a part of the unconscious mind consisting of repressed weaknesses, shortcomings, and instincts. It is one of the... most recognizable archetypes... "Everyone carries a shadow," Jung wrote, "and the less it is embodied in the individual's conscious life, the blacker and denser it is." It may be (in part) one's link to more primitive animal instincts, which are superseded during early childhood by the conscious mind...
According to Jung, the shadow, in being instinctive and irrational, is prone to project: turning a personal inferiority into a perceived moral deficiency in someone else. (Wikipedia)
Of course what you say is eminently true to the point of being platitudinous, if I may say. What would be great is after your analysis of the problem to offer any concrete suggestions but that would be the really hard part.
Regards, aloha,
We Americans in our democratic experiment have those two strong strains that are probably deep-seated in humans as a whole--to be autonomous and to be joined to effect things that collective thinking and behaving is capable of. What is the downside of Americans insisting on autonomousness is the resentment of abiding by what many perceive as intrusion into personal lives which does go on but one of the glories of our American democracy is the respect for law. Without that we see the really bad things that happen in countries without that respect for law that engenders lack of order and decreed justice. To be able to question that authority with lawful means is possible in our country, not even conceivable in authoritarian countries.
I guess it comes down to how much you and others are willing to be part of our collective culture and how much you feel that to be unacceptable. To see that any idea is to one's self-interest and furthers societal benefits that affect one personally even indirectly is a matter of being able to discern the implications of one's choices and behavior. The more holisticly and higher conscious a populace is, the more that society will enjoy peaceability and attendant benefits.
Best regards, aloha, namaste!
It seems we democracies are being given a real test for our money re: democracy/capitalism and Chinese style capitalism/strong state control.
"The Rise of the Rest" is putting us to that test and if the West can recover economically, I think we can still be in the running re: how developing nations will be persuaded by the West's or China's succcess and model.
It would be such a crying shame for humanity if democracy were to fail but nothing is forever and China still must prove themselves able to handle the very troublesome issues of pollution, human rights, and continuing economic expansion. These issues will perhaps help to "make them honest", let's hope.
Would you agree that though China is loathe to appear to cave on any issue, wolrd media attn and the family of nations are exerting pressure on them? Saving face is of prime concern for them, as is known. I they can be perceived to do that in "caving", they are more likely to do so. I think autocratic nations do care how they're perceived by the rest of the world. Let's see how things spin out for N. Korea, Iran and some of those horrible African dictators.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474978231340
And how. I am truly shocked by the state of politics in our country.
I was a 6-yr-old. It was a quiet Sunday morning and my father stood at a sink shaving, noting the puffs of black smoke happening out toward what we found out was the bombs falling on the ships at Pearl Harbor. As events became broadcast on our radio, we gradually discovered the Japanese had attacked us and President Roosevelt had declared war (whatever that was to a 6-yr-old. Rationing of some foods, blackouts, masking up our windows, conserving rubber bands and tinfoil in big balls delivered to schools, war bonds and stamps, drafting and mobilization of the young men, bomb shelters and gas masks are a part of my memories. There wasn't much else after Dec. 7 that stands out other than reading the headlines of the newspapers and following the escalation, the battles moving from theater to theater and the big final atomic bomb news that brought the war to and end. The 442nd troops were a source of pride when we got news of them but the evacuation camps were sad when they became reported. My family and those I knew fortunately were not notably affected. It seems there was a great sense of everybody being on the same page united against our enemies.
Then of course there was the movie news reels on the war when we went out to the theater ... some gave me nightmares of tanks invading my backyard at home ... then later about the time the war ended my mom left my dad and took us kids to California where we met a troop-ship bringing my soon to be step-dad home from the war ... I guess somethings I was not aware of had been going on behind my back for some time.
Fortunately all of my parents, new and old, step and real, remained good Friends all during my upbringing and all turned out well ... the one thing that I do remember though is those many years after the war with somewhat suburban and rural living, it seemed that everyone got along all of the time, all were busy enjoying life after so much deprivation and everyone was happy ... at least in the eyes of us children who tagged along everywhere ...
Beware the Wild Centaur
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
No prizes for guessing whose those slogans are but I'll give you a clue. He Cares.
You can Google them of course but having found the answer will you take the next step.
For anyone who knows the answer there is a warning about what corporate society does to those natural bonds than bind individuals and communities together. As for social networking, it is the enemy of community; it isolates those who use it rather than linking them together.
Well I'm off down the pub, see you all.
What about those who are housebound? If one can't have "real life friends," social networking would seem to be the next best thing.
Accrington is a smallish town, around pop. 80, 000.
A couple of decades ago there were to my knowledge a photography club, a horticultural society, a model making club, 2 Amateur dramatic societies, 3 amateur operatic societies around 20 Working men's Clubs, a British Legion (ex servicemen's club) numerous amateur football and cricket clubs, the local library hosted knitting circles, sewing groups, writers groups and disability groups and I could remember many more social groups attached to churches, large employers, trade guilds and unions. Many of these are now defunct, killed of by social changes that were more about profit for global corporations than enhancing the lives of individuals.
There is only one thing we should fear more than a world run by Big Brother and that is a world run by the Oligarchs of Google and Facebook.
The only people who have benefitted from the Internet as far as I can see are paedophiles and trolls. Think of it this way, you met me online - now I know you and I could have a very good conversation about philosophy but online it is always stifled by the intervention of trolls and people who maybe aren't trolls but do not understand abstract conversation and think their beliefs and attitudes are being attacked.
How much better would it be to meet someone with an interest in similar abstract ideas at your local philosophical society (yes, Accrington used to have one of those) and thus gain a friend who shared that additional bond of living in the same community.
The internet in my view has inhibited communication rather than enhancing it. In real life the "noise" of the internet is silenced because in a community where people know each others families and social groups there are social constraints of the kind that have prevailed since the neolithic era compel people to behave in a civilised way.
Still, the good news is Anarchy is making a big comeback in the UK :-)
Having never been a member of a sewing or knitting or horticultural club, or any of those listed, I can't evaluate to what extent the internet contributed to the demise of those in Accrington. I live in a town of the same size, and I know of many clubs and groups I'm not interested in joining, and a few that I would join if I had more time, and if I ever overcame the terminal shyness and nerdiness that turns much of the real world, with those social constraints, into "noise" for me. (I know of the existence of some of those groups from the internet.) There is community theater, by the way, including light opera. (I buy tickets on their website, since their office, although about 200 yards from where I live, is hardly ever open.) And there are many service clubs, of course... I don't see how chatting on FB could take the place of these.
Anyway, a lot of people have made excellent points (including Jerry just above me), so I won't belabor this.
The kind of aggressive attacks one finds on the internet, is simply not tolerated in the real world, and the result (depending on the neighborhood) of such behavior would be to get shunned or get shot. (In Brooklyn it tended to the latter, so politeness was a survival skill).
I think the internet is the future of human communications, for all the reasons Aniko stated, BUT, we are still in the wild west stage, and we need to find some way to enforce civilized behavior. I dont really know how to do that, but I am sure there must be a way.
I think there is one exception to that-- driving. We humans feel free to abuse others as long as it is from behind a barrier, be it a windshield or an internet connection.
•"If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death ... And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"
George Orwell, 1984 (book 1 chapter 3)
Could such a thing happen? It's happening. There is a project running in Britain, the US and presumably around the free world that monitors all emails and web pages for certain keywords. I'm not going to type the name of the project, last time I did a warning from the security services reminding me the project does not exist arrived a couple of days later.
Certain words can be used as triggers to make emails vanish or to ensure a web page is not indexed by search engines. Search Engine technology (which is not rocket science even though rocket science is not very difficult) can raise a certain web page to the top of a listing or move another so far down it will never be seen. Why then do they not remove paedophile or terrorist sites? you might well ask.
Simple, leaving these sites online preserves an illusion of freedom on the most tightly controlled medium ever devised (I know, I helped devise it).
The internet is not your friend. If the future of human communications is the internet, Big Brother is the future of human society.
I don't think your point about road rage is quite valid Ann - in a car we are physically isolated but also isolated by silence. A contorted face could indicate somebody is hurling abuse but equally that somebody is singing along with a Sex Pistols track.
Ian, are these internet controllers, governmental? Or is that question too dangerous to answer?
(Real-life conflicts playing out on social networking sites or in reply-to-all email wars are of course a different story, and it's unfortunately true that the medium can stir and amplify the mess in new ways.)
Ian, I don't underestimate the attempts of governments and corporations to control the flow of information on the internet. But I'm also aware that even strongly restrictive governments (China, Iran) have failed to achieve complete control, and the many Davids out there score points against these attempts by Goliath every day. As it is now, democratic efforts are frequently organized on the internet, and quite successfully. I think that what we're looking at is a dynamic struggle between these two interests--which is the usual situation, not an exception. It appears (unbelievable that this may sound) that I'm more optimistic than you are.
(On that same note, I had some comments here not very long ago about what I think Orwell got wrong about human nature. If you're interested, I can try and find them.)
(Here's the transcript for anyone who prefers to just skim through.)
I'd love to read what you think Orwell got wrong about human nature. I'd also like to know what you think about the Milgram Experimentwhich tends to bear out Orwell's assumptions. My problem you see is I've read Machiavelli.
I got through the fidt two paragraphs of that transcript before deciding life is too short to waste on such self indulgent claptrap. In conjunction with his famous Gin Lane engraving Hogarth did another, Beer Street which depicted a prosperous, bawdy, beer swilling England. Really what Hogarth is depicting is London and the newly industrialised north versus rural England. At that time agriculture was a far bigger employer than industry. His point was that people forced to live in the appalling conditions prevailing in towns were likely to lose their dignity more easily than people who enjoyed a better quality of life.
There were many transformative technologies that contributed to the industrial revolution, Abraham Darby's blast furnace made possible smelting of iron on an industrial scale from 1709. That was soon followed by Newcomen's steam engine in 1712 was the first atmospheric steam pump and made mining of deep seams possible. After those, which were linked in that they made the coal to fuel industry and the iron to build machines much cheaper new developments came thick and fast.
The real transormation came about because of but not directly as a result of Jetho Tull's first album seed drill which was the first step in mechanised farming. On the back of that landowners used a hundred year old law, The Enclosures Act to drive peasants off the land. I covered that briefly in a two part article called The Other Slaves which though it was written to coincide with the anniversay of the abolition of slave trading looks as well at social conditions in Britain and how industrial workers were being virtually enslaved in the factories.
Mr. Shirky I'm afraid has been shirking on his research which is why he can spout such arrant nonesense. The Gin drinking epidemic was centred on London and Britain was not as London-centric as now. Rum was very popular in the West where the sea ports traded with the colonies of the Caribbean, apple brandy was made in the countryside and ouisce beath (water of life aka Whisky) was the alternative to beer and wine in the north.
I've never heard this before and I'm not saying "oh, he's so right"--I have no idea if he is. It's certainly an interesting--and for a change, optimistic--interpretation of some of what's happening on the internet today, from the amount of time and effort some people put into creating content on sites like Wikipedia to our very discussions here. :)
The Milgram experiment is certainly scary, but I won't get into it now, because the discussion I'm referring to was about how people behave, what attitudes they have to authority, in actually existing repressive societies. (There are of course important differences between a whole society, with all the different aspects of life taking place, and doing so long-term, and a concentrated, short-term experiment.)
It's hard to identify the exact point at which one of these meandering discussions starts, but I'll call it this comment. The underlying question was whether people in communist dictatorships viewed their governments based on the "strong father" archetype (strict, authoritarian, but takes care of us), and my "problem" was not having read something, but actually having lived in one. :)
(My main point was that people despised the system, saw it as a being built on lies, pretense, and corruption, and routinely believed the exact opposite of whatever the official version was. There was doubletalk and doubleact, when necessary, and Orwell got that perfectly right (among the first in that group of leftist intellectuals), and he got the characteristics of the language used to achieve this spot-on. But there was no doublethink and certainly no respect and admiration. The typical response to the situation was sarcastic pessimism and a bit of passive resistance.)
Yes, he mentions gin drinking in a positive light and then totally loses the polt and comes up with this idea of "human potential surplus" (I'd guess the guy is some kind of psychologist - only a psychologist could be so wrong in so many ways) The Gin drinking epidemic depicted in Hogath's Gin Lane did not come about because thanks to mechanisation they had time to kill. Thanks to mechanisation they were forced out of a fairly (by the standards of the day) life on the land, stripped of dignity, forced to work long hours in horrible conditions for subsistence wages while living in filthy rat infested slums. In his diaries the novellist Henry Fielding wrote of infant mortility in London being 75%. London posed an additional problem for the poor however, whereas the mine and factiry workers of the towns had steady jobs to go to every day most work among the Labouring classes in London was casual day work. This imposed the additional stress of not knowing if they would earn enough to feed the family.
People drank to gain a temporary respite from the misery of their lives. As for human potential surplus the only thing these poor, diseased, starving wretches had the potential to do beyond earning a meagre living was die young.
Beyong the basic human needs, water, food, shelter, warmth and companionship humans have a number of secondary needs if they are to have an acceptable quality of life. Among these are meaningful occupation and a sense of belonging. Can you convincingly argue that the technology and the internet are not damaging both of those?
To do satire Shirkey needs to understand his subject properly. Gin Lane has been satirized many times on stage and television as have other contemporary practices like lowering boy chimney sweeps down chimneys on a rope, the running of the workhouses, the practice of using rats to fill meat pies etc.
Milgram is scary. So is politically correct thinking as it pushes the idea there is only one "right" point of view.
and
"So is politically correct thinking as it pushes the idea there is only one "right" point of view."
Well, maybe I can, Ian. Maybe there really is more than one "right" point of view. Maybe, as I said above, different people have different experiences. Maybe there are people who learned things and made connections they never would have made without the internet. Maybe the world opened up for someone living in an oppressive, provincial environment; maybe a student in the third world found access to materials otherwise unavailable in his country; maybe some square peg in a round hole realized she wasn't the only such person in the whole world, and decided she didn't need to commit suicide right away. Maybe (though I admit this is pushing it) there's even a point to this discussion on this forum. :)
If I may join in... Cohesion within a small group (microcosm) is relatively easy; especially when the group, as a whole, is under duress. Group cohesion tends to decrease proportionally as the size of the group expands because larger groups provide broader swaths of both diversity and similarity among the group members; and this leads to members clustering into similar-minded subsets.
Large groups (such as a nation) can come together when faced with a large enough and/or dire enough enemy or cause (Hitler, hurricane, 9/11), but, generally, a nation lives by a common perception that if my individual life is as peaceful and prosperous as I can make it, then the lives of others whose existences are not as peaceful and prosperous as they would like it to be, are living that way because they don't work at it hard enough.
My observation would be that our collective willingness (or unwillingness) to care about the needs of ALL other people has nothing to do with our sense of connection to them, but rather it is quite hindered by the rigid and dogmatic application of an ingrained national attitude towards complete self responsibility.
Hmmm... the seems to be the American National Character that you're calling into question!
Would you agree that self-interest is a major factor in getting people to agree to any idea? When that self-interest is shared by a big part of the population that can see it's important to them, there's more signing on to things.
A good leader can talk sense into making peoples realize the good of ideas.
A charismatic leader can persuade peoples to follow programs (even negatively; think Hitler) and the leader is able to make the difference in persuading or failing to do so. It's also important that the followers will gradually realize the sense and benefits of adopting programs. Kids in school should be educated in making good decisions, on recognizing good ideas differentiating substance from propagandistic huckstering.
A social dynamic that worked significantly in Hitler's favor as he swung the people to the ideals of his leadership, would be that the German people had suffered miserably for years in war torn landscapes, amidst economic depression and under the global disparagement of post-WWI realities. To the German people of the time, Hitler (and his ideology) were embraced as beneficial to their own self interest.
This is very similar to what we witnessed in the post-Russian-occupied Afghanistan of the 1980s; where in answer to the Afghani's extended post-war plights came the Taliban and Al-Queda.
Self interest certainly is a key.
Had any nation, (or significantly resourced group of people) stepped in to help these people cope with their post war plights - as opposed to leaving them to clean-up and re-build their nations on their own - the resulting atrocities that sprang from those nations may well have been avoided.
It seems to me that the topic of this article surrounds finding ways to motivate those people whose lives are basically peaceful and comparatively affluent, to be better mindful stewards of all global inhabitants. This would seem to require finding a way to get them to look beyond their own already satisfied self interests and put more effort into lifting and supporting everyone up.
Sadly, the solid logic found in being beneficent, mindful and caring keepers of our global brothers and sisters is fogged by a fear of disrupting the satisfying status quo as well as being undercut by the self interest of simply maintaining the satisfying staus quo.
Many people do practice "out of sight, out of mind" attitudes, and those attitudes bring about spotty application. For example: someone who made a large contribution to the post-Katrina efforts in New Orleans may willfully contribute nothing to the world's HIV epidemic. People's senses of caring, as well as their contributions, vary according to the individual whims of their attitudes.
This (people's judgmental attitudes and resulting actions) is the arena where the evolution of conscientious consciousness needs to be encouraged to expand.
I recall reading an article around the time we started the war with Iraq that for 80 billion we could provide clean water to every village in Africa. What is notable is that 80 billion is about what we spent the first year of that war. I can't help but think that we would be much better off had we spent the money on clean water rather than bombs.
Sadly, the solid logic found in being beneficent, mindful and caring keepers of our global brothers and sisters is fogged by a fear of disrupting the satisfying status quo as well as being undercut by the self interest of simply maintaining the satisfying staus quo.
Very well-said. I believe we have some evolutionary hard-wiring to overcome when it comes to this topic.
1) Fear of bad things happening is a factor in making people consider changes. The worse the fear the more pesuasive.
2) Realizing the changes proposed will be of great benefit
3) Setting forth a program of steps and measures that will pragmatically and rather easily effected
4) Effective and heavy media PR campaigns, enlisting talent that can persuade in hip, do-able, glamourous, catchy ways to adopt change, spin well
5) Cash awards, contests, rewards
6) Heads of state talking up the need for change pointing out choices
Etc, etc.
The hoarding needs to stop. When a Golman exec was asked if he had any remorse for the 68 Billion he made, he said NO without even batting an eye. 68 Billion in comparison with $7- $10 an hour is a no-brainer, but that man could have cared less about raising the minium wage, or even feeling guilty about it. This free market stuff is so out of balance, it's a total emabarrassment, but they aren't even embarrassed, and are still fighting to keep regulations far from their door step.
And then there are our Congressmen raising their own wages before they even tend to the poverty in this nation. They should all be fired until we find the ones who will actually work for the people. But we just keep paying their increases for the Yachts and island vactions. Common people need to wise up.
It's long been a puzzle to me why so many middle class and lower middle class citizens vote conservative and/or Republican, as this is essentially voting against their own interests.
What's being effective in teaching and promoting ideas is to develop a popular bestselling video game. The military is using this idea and more and more are jumping onboard. Fun + good idea = a winner!
Jesus said many would come in his name, but they false prophets and teachers. I honestly believe he was talking about the rise of Christianity, which he knew Rome would infiltrate.
I think it is because of their being fearful and thus conservative, hanging on for dear life to what little they have and listening to their wing-nut pundits scare them half to death about how the liberals are the cause of all of their problems and will be the reason for their undoing.
They then cast their lot with the side that they think is the most strong in a militaristic and law enforcement way, hoping for that protection ... they somehow believe that their only hope is the titans of wealth who they so desire to be like so that they do not have to fear any more ... they are extremely dualistic having been brainwashed that evil will trick and get them ... and of course that abounds on the liberal side ... evidence Hollywood ... so says FOX and Rush their heroes.
IMnsHO
I absolutely agree. If there is one thing that Jesus knew it was that religion could be, and often was, wielded simply as a power over people. This ties in with the vehement sanctimoniousness that is so prevalent in modern mainstream Christianity. The belief that being Christian bestows a God given right of power over others feeds human arrogance and is totally opposite to the humility which Jesus indicated was key.
"I think it is because of their being fearful and thus conservative, hanging on for dear life to what little they have..."
I agree. The number one psychological correlate with being a conservative is fear of death. (Unfortunately, not being at home, I don't have the link to the NY Times article that pointed this out).
The only reasons I can think of:
1) They haven't thought what the implications are for voting that way.
2) Are they wannabees and want to be them or support them, the way the Brits support the royals?
3) They love Sarah Palin.
I have often wondered what kind of group-think fosters this blind loyalty that seems not just rampant among the GOP and conservative, but whose demanding of seems eagerly embraced by their members. Perhaps some threads of British aristocratic thinking have evolved within America's culture; our nation is very much an offspring of their culture.
British aristocratic thinking teaches that lords and vassals are the overseers of the citizenry. Royalty directs projects and labor along the ways which are best for everyone. This includes defense, community planning, the maintaining of order, the distribution of goods, etc. The "royalty" is charged with looking after the needs of the people and the people are charged with supporting (financially included) the monarchy (aristocracy).
To my mind, this is probably the progenitor of the Good-Stewardship philosophy that is supposed to apply especially to our American political classes. The citizenry trusts and supports politicians and business leaders because those leaders are expected to defend and nurture the working classes in a reciprocal, mutually beneficial, socially symbiotic relationship
The habit and practice is for the rank and file to trust what leaders are asking from them, with the expectation that everything will turn out best in the end. In hard times, general citizens use their faith in the leadership to accept, endure and even embrace levels of suffering.
But this only works well when the leaders are truly good hearted. It is, sadly, a civil system that lends itself quite easily to abuse.
I've spent a VERY significant part of my life trying to study, observe and ponder the majority of static and dynamic aspects of individual and mass humanity. It would feel like a sad, sad testament if all I've firmly grasped by this point (50) is politics.
I think you make some good points, but Im not sure I agree completely. I actually see the average American political POV as very distinct from that of the average Britisher or any European. I think it is in fact somewhat the opposite, Americans tend to MIStrust anyone in power, dislike all authorities and are in fact descended from people who rejected authority and cultural rules.
I think that most of the right wing and even the moderate conservatives (if there are any left) think of themselves as rebels, and as being against the power structure. Today they associate the control with liberals, democrats, socialists, etc. During Bush, they said that the neo cons had taken over, along with the banks, large corporations, etc. They do not see themselves as helping the status quo keep control, they see themselves as revolutionaries, fighting to regain control of a nation taken over by a godless coalition of the ACLU, Muslims, Black militants, hippies, atheists, communists, liberals, gays, wealthy eastern bankers, anti-Christians, gun control, anti prayer, pro abortion, etc etc. enemies.
This might sound strange, especially to a generation like mine, who always thought of rebels as being left wing, but it has happened many times in history, including the rise of fascism, and the old South.
The rebels have absolutely NO trust in their leaders, either in government or business. Of course, the irony is that they are right, except that they do not see that they are being manipulated and used by the very powerful elite that they think they are fighting. (I know, I sound like Jerry. But he is right to some extent).
The plain truth is that Obama actually does speak for most of these people, they just dont want to hear it. They have been fooled. It has happened before (the 1950s). What we dont know is how it will end.
This was more true in the past when royals and aristocrats were leaders by virtue of education and noblesse oblige granted that role. Now we see whites being challenged by democratic attitudes of more educated multiracial and multicultural populations demanding their place on the planet and in the sun. The white pushback is neo-Nazism groups and ultra conservative fanatics.
Dickens' The Tale of Two Cities" is a grim reminder of how karma operates, the vengeance of the oppressed populace dispossessed by the aristos completely blase to their impoverishment while living in the luxurious lap of luxury. Terrorism has roots in this gripe as well, accusing with well founded proof on TV, of how the wealthy nations exploit their people and putting the blame on corrupted capitalists of the world. Nature abhors a vacuum and the disparity between the lives of the haves and have-nots amounts to a vacuum accompanied by the sucking sound of wealth taken from exploited countries with natural resources to benefit the countries that can afford the comfort provided by their wealth.
The blowback of indifference to the pitiful plight of the have-nots of the world may result in something of the sort of the French Revolution, the South African pushback against Apartheid, and now terrorism. These actions taken are actually over-reactions taken by those who can't tolerate the inequality longer and explode with violence.
Thus it's in the self-interest of those who fail to see that their selfish ways can only lead to karmic payback and should take heed. Collectively we over-consumers are all complicit in this hugely unfair distribution of the resources of the planet. In this way capitalism and market logic has much to redress.
In addition to your statement, I think empathy needs to be called into play and to really identify with the problem and attendant pain enough to try to reach out and help is what is also needed to get people off their complacency. Lots of good people will altruisticly help others when they understand how those folks are suffering.
I've been away from this post for the past few days. Let me start in, again, by speaking to this latest comment.
"In addition to your statement, I think empathy needs to be called into play and to really identify with the problem and attendant pain enough to try to reach out and help is what is also needed to get people off their complacency. Lots of good people will altruisticly help others when they understand how those folks are suffering. "
My view is that the problem is not complacency, so much as it is exhaustion. The majority of Americans are currently worked quite hard, everyday, just to meet their own basic needs. They rise early, commute, arrive home just in time for dinner, then spend their evenings seeing to the demands of maintaining home, family members and local community.
All of this results in an exhaustion which leaves little time for dealing with empathy that may arise regarding the plights of people they do not actually know. They push their concern and care for broader ranges of the world's suffering aside, because they see a lack of personal time to take-on another cause. Their sense of caring is touched when they hear of others suffering, but they feel unable to do anything about it; and the result is a mask of apathy or even resentment towards the needy that exist outside their immediate circles.
Millions of these hard working people contribute significant amounts of money to "world" charities as a result of their sense of empathy being touched. Sadly, many "world" charities spend the majority of contributions received on covering business expenses which results in a pitiful amount of donations received actually reaching and helping the suffering.
I absolutely agree that it is in everyone's best interest to overcome personal selfishness and avoid the karmic blow-back of indifference. When children die because the price of a cure is out of reach to the economically disadvantaged, a very deep resentment is often spawned; one that will often seek a vengeance.
"This was more true in the past when royals and aristocrats were leaders by virtue of education and noblesse oblige granted that role."
More true in the past? Perhaps, but it is still quite true in our American society of today. The bulk of our influential politicians still come from moneyed families and prestigious colleges. Yes, we do see some signs of diversity making in-roads to out political structures, but the bulk of power still seems to rest in the hands of America's version of aristocracy. Despite 44's overwhelming public popularity during the election cycle, He still absolutely required backing from established and entrenched powers, both corporate and political, in order to gain the presidency.
Many Americans "say" that they do not trust authority or politicians - and the fact that less than half of all Americans are registered to vote supports the pervasiveness of this cultural attitude - but most Americans pay our authorities their due respect, because having authorities is key to maintaining order and fairness. For all the bluster of gun promoting self-defenders, America would be a much weaker nation if all of us were constantly coping alone with having to defend ourselves against each other.
It is my impression that the average American conservative of today does not see themselves as revolutionaries, but rather as the defenders of what they perceive as the original ideals. They are defending themselves against the waves of changing ideals; the ideals that embrace diversity.
Of course, it is difficult to use a term like "rebel" in any consistent manner. Rebels fight against an established order while conservatives seek to preserve an established order. The Old South, for example, labeled themselves rebels because they were rebelling against dictates from the government of their time, yet, what they were actually doing was defending their established lifestyle; and that is the traditional mantle of a conservative (resisting change).
History shows that trust in leaders always varies, because people will put effective amounts of trust in those leaders who seem to share the views and ideals of the led.
Overall, 44 certainly is a champion for the majority of America's (and every American's) best interests.
I think what's happening right now, with the tea party, is a combination of conservatives fighting for power and all those racist folks who never voted in their life finding out they have an African American President seem to come out of the woodwork. There is a struggle on that side of the fence between the folks carrying those little monkey dolls and other racist materials/signage and the Christian conservatives who just want to cling to their guns and Bibles (sort of ironic, huh?). Oh yeah, I said it and I won't apologize either. So what, throw me under a bus, lol. The man they worship said NO GUNS, but they say WE WANT OURS GUNS ANyWAY. And of course brought their guns to where Obama was speaking. These are the folks who join/organize militias, Christian militias, even though Jesus said NO GUNS. No, they are not rebels, they are defending their right to bear arms, like good Christians should (insert sarcasm here). Christianity has always been just as forceful a religion as Islam is, but let's not let on like it is, let's pretend we are the RIGHTEOUS ones and Islam is the terrorist religion. Bologna! I saw Roots!
But Sy is sort of semi correct in saying that they see everyone else as godless.
Has LYR done a thread on the One World Order that Christians fear so much - that would be an interesting topic to discuss - Oneness.
The stinking rich are planning billion-dollar luxury liners that keep the land-based Americans they've plundered at a safe distance.</</a>strong>
(At least, I think that's what mean.)
Yes, religion gives a lot of support beneath the underlying fears of those who believe in equality for all but limited to their kind, the more they resemble themselves the better. It's natural to be self-interested and protective of what's yours but not so that others go deprived of necessities at the expense of those don't seem willing to share or know what's enough.
It's well to raise that point. What's helpful is that there are now sites online that are able to show the way charities spend their monies and how much goes to salaries and perks. It's well to check them out before you send in checks. ( online Charity Navigator )
Excellent !! Thank you for sharing that.
Though there are points Republicans uphold I have objections to I submit again the caution that no one party ever has all the answers and what may be irksome now may at some other time prove to be less so, in fact more useful than the other's positions. Politics are subject to the changes that affect our outlook on issues and we shouldn't oppose the other party's ideas without considering that. No party has a monopoly on good ideas or solutions to our challenges. Dems usually have Main St. at heart but currently the GOP is championing more careful spending, though what that means in cutting programs is problematic.
It seems that sense of being better, deserving more than the less-privileged, out-doing your peers with conspicuous consumption and losing the sense of when enough is enough goes with those who have great wealth. This isn't to say all of them and Americans will be historically recognized as the most exemplary donors of charities. But I believe you and anyone will know of what I speak re: unconscionable greed and over-the-top consumption, wealth beyond any possible productive use of it for generations.
I understand kids from strict homes are perhaps more "happy", where the rules are consistent and well-understood. Maintaining respect and affection is necessary. To be able to correct behavior w/o getting too exercised is a good way to go, w/o pissing kids off and inspiring pushback and resentments. I still rankle at unjust reprimands from my childhood days, don't you?
(Parents, please feel free to chime in here).
Sy, I think you're right that the rejection of authority is one of the founding narratives of America. It seems though that when the circumstances are right, very similar right-wing rebel movements spring up easily anywhere ("civic circles" in Hungary, for example).
Frank,
"Yes, religion gives a lot of support beneath the underlying fears of those who believe in equality for all but limited to their kind, the more they resemble themselves the better."
We can all think of examples when "religion" does/has done that. But my awfully limited experience also includes instances when "it" asserts the equality and unity of every human being in some of the clearest and strongest terms you can find anywhere in the history of our species.
With that conditioning so ingrained over so many generations, I believe we will have to come together on a spiritual level before we can ever come together on a global level. I don't think a common enemy will work in global connectedness unless that common enemy was an extraterrestrial invasion.
Human beings are destructive beyond measure, not only among themselves, but toward all other earth beings. How do we turn that around, if not on a spiritual level? Human beings would have to have a major awakening as to the destruction they are responsible for on this earth, and even beyond (think space junk). The pessimistic side of me tells me we may destroy ourselves before we allow ourselves to awaken. We keep crossing over the Laws of Nature, like shooting missiles at our Moon, or creating atomic bombs. What's going on in the Gulf right now is a perfect example of human destruction- all those clowns blaming one another rather than taking responsibility - it's obvious they didn't come together prior to the explosion and make sure they had made proper safety precautions, or even have a plan in place in the aftermath of a devastating event such as this. Not too many people even realize how bad this spill is for the world- it seems to be business as usual. But when the astronauts tell us that it looks scary from space, we should all be concerned.
But I think there must be many ways for people to be drawn to spirit. Perhaps I was just so stubborn that I needed a little rough-housing. :@)
Jerry, you're probably right. If there's a universal step in the spiritual evolution of humans, it's the realization that we are not separate.
I never was good in science class, and wasn't even interested until I heard Dr Wayne Dyer speak one Sunday afternoon. It stunned me that negatives and positives could work together to create and sustain life. (see how much i paid attention in school, lol) I'd been taught all my life that those forces were incompatible. It made me hungry to know more.
The internet really spells it out and is a supreme metaphor for how we are all interconnected whether that's realized consciously or not. There's no choice in the matter, undeniable like gravity or centrifugal force.
I believe you are an NPR listener. I find it a one-stop for quick info summaries that give enough details w/o boring or bogging me down. When I have a newspaper, I've already heard the story from NPR, they've considered all things for me. If they haven't yet, they will when it becomes pressing. For those who want a painless, informative, entertaining news and info venue, I strongly recommend NPR! Some others distrust it but of all media news I find them the most enjoyable and credible. Critical feedback from listeners keeps them honest, I believe and the overwhelming support of steady listeners is a vote of our confidence.
What's really great about you is your continuing to be curious and your searching for answers beyond what you already know. I spoke about listening to National Public Radio once, suggesting it as a source of credible-enough info and think you'd benefit from their reporting of anything and everything in an engagng and listener-friendly manner.
Check it out, I'd be interested with your feedback after a while, say a week.
It's good if you have a radio in the kitchen you can turn on before you start cooking, it's feeding your head and your stomach simultaneously. Aloha,
Anything labeled "National" draws out the skeptic in me, so you can imagine my brow rising at the sound of NPR. I'm already feeling it is controled by the System to allow ONLY what they want reiterated over the air waves. They have the capability to shut it down if goes against the grain.
Does NPR have a website? I may go check it out before I actually drag out a radio. I'm really not one to have brain washed while I cook dinner. :@)
I lament that National Public Radio is painted with the same cynicism national efforts get, deservedly and otherwise. I'm not a flag waver but I'm very grateful to live in a country where something worthwhile as NPR does it's work. I go so far as to say NPR is the cutting edge of radio broadcasting and millions of people agree, plunking down money to support it and with lots of efforts to cut back the funding from some, including Congress members. I live by it, have it on while I'm painting and think of it as my continuing education, Enlightenment radio. There's so much I've learned so effortlessly and enjoyably.
Yes you can access it online. I hope you'll give it not only a once over but a try, there's lots there that you will find enlightening, I assure you. If you've noted, our Ann herself thinks NPR's worthy of listening.
TY for your helpful post. The logistics still aren't clear to me how to indicate with checks. Could you walk me through that process start to finish step 1, 2, 3, etc, where to go and with (>)s?
1. Go to the group page
2. click on group settings
3. check each box you'd like to receive notices on.(there will be check boxes for posts, comments, recommends, etc.
4. click save.
This same routine will work for friends as well - so if you want to know everything Ann does:
1. Go to friends
2. Find Ann
3. under her icon click on friend settings
4 the page will show several boxes you can check - posts, comments, recommends, etc. Check the boxes that interest you
5. click save.
Hope that works out for you, Frank.
TY for your very helpful headsup. Aloha, Frank
Go to LYR homepage (or any other group)
In the right hand column find 'email preferences'
click on that
it takes you to a page with boxes to check for posts, videos, photos, etc.
check what you wish, then click save
It will be the same with any "friend" you select - on the friend setting page there will be email preferences for posts, comments, recommends, etc.
Unfortunately, I don't listen to NPR, but I do visit their web site. (I prefer to get my news via reading, so I can pick and choose what I learn about).
I haven't noticed much difference since I set up notification but don't get much feedback anyway. I run across many responses only by chance but that means having to read the whole thread.
When I first heard this, I had just moved to Italy, and I was eager to reject the land I had come from. I realized that Americans are not descended from a random assortment of Europeans, but are self selected. We are the descendents of those who were willing to cut all cultural and historical ties to their past, and to forge a new life with no connections. The bad part of this is a loss of connectivity. The good part is the independent spirit and the love of freedom.
Meanwhile, Europe is also changing, and it is becoming harder to find that solidarity spirit than it used to be. I think Frank is right, it could turn out to be the American experiment that will lead the global search for betterment, peace and security. This is why Obama's election was so uplifting, and the current viscious attacks on him and the government are so troubling.
Fear is the opposite of love, and the fomenter of hatred. The irony is that there really is not that much to fear these days. But fear is being promulgated by the right wing for their own advantage. Hitler has been mentioned here, a master of the use of fear. Almost everything we have done wrong has come from fear. Fear of the dubious loyalty of Japanese Americans and communists. Fear of Black people, fear of gays.
I dont like the use of fear, even when used by the left, such as the fear of environmental disaster, fear of over population, fear of chemicals. Most of these fears are also exaggerated and counter productive. Perhaps we should remember FDR - we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
If we can get over our fear (which is a basic evolutionary emotion that is no longer needed) we can begin to re-connect in larger groups and change the world. Bill is right when he says that cultural evolution should and has supplanted biological evolution for humanity. There are no more saber tooth tigers, no more cave bears, and death comes to us after many decades instead of in our 30s. We evolved with fear as a needed tool for survival. We must put it aside, in favor of love.
Fear, real or imagined, is best handled by facing it right up front rather than ignoring, denying, or running away from ... when properly confronted it disappears on it's own because it is converted into something else ... even love.
IMnsHO.
We are the only one who has actually pushed the button on nuclear weapons. Were we afraid then? Is that why we pushed the darn button? Or was it because we were superior and letting folks know they need to be afraid, be very afraid.
"If we can get over our fear (which is a basic evolutionary emotion that is no longer needed) we can begin to re-connect in larger groups and change the world."
This echoes the Buddha's teachings. As you may know, the Japanese-style statues of the Buddha contain a variety of hand positions (mudras) that symbolize different parts of his teachings. One of the best-known is the "no fear" position-- I'll post it below.
The "no fear" mudra.
We pushed the button on the first atomic bomb totally out of fear. The Japanese Army was terrifying and the Imperial government of Japan had stated it would never surrender, that it would keep its troops in China and Korea, and would wage war on the US forever. We had managed to grab control of the Pacific Islands at tremendous cost, and despite the fact that the remaining Japanese soldiers were starving and desperate they fought hard and valiantly. The Kamikazi attacks in 1945 on US ships were almost completely impossible to defend against and took thousands of lives. As the war in Europe ended, it was apparent that the only way to end the war completely was to invade Japan. The entire US military and government was terrified by that prospect. They knew the casualty rate on both sides would be enormous.
It was to avoid the horror of several more years of warfare that the first bomb was dropped. It didnt work. The Japanese government decided based on bad intelligence that the US had only one bomb. They vowed to keep fighting. In fact we had two bombs, and after the second one was dropped, they agreed to surrender, and the war was over.
I know that this account goes against the more fashionable politically carrect view that we Americans and Westerners in general are terrible raciist imperialist monsters. The truth is that the Japanese were by far the most racist brutal imperialists (after the NAzis) the world has ever seen. History trumps mythology in my book, any time.
I dont see you disagreeing with me. You said the same thing I said, that fear is a tool that is used to get people to do bad things. Sometimes the fear is justified as in the use of the atomic bomb, but most of the time it isnt, as in all of your other examples. The main disagreement that I have with you, is that this is not limited to Europeans or Americans. I know the Avatar (which I have finally seen) image of noble savages is very popular, but the fact is that fear, savagery and brutality is widespread in the world and not limited to one region or ethnicity. We need only look at the Sudan, China, Nigeria, Afghanistan, etc. etc. to see that. All of the bad, as well as all of the good of mankind is universal.
Thank you for that image.
Sy, we may agree that fear abounds, but what I was disagreeing with is that "fear" is the culprit. The majority of our species is being held in bondage. You say, "The main disagreement that I have with you, is that this is not limited to Europeans or Americans." I say the white man dominates this world, and has become the bully because he wants to rule the world. We've interbred on every continent in order to assure this.
Sorry I have not seen Avatar as I don't do movies or TV anymore. So I have no idea to what you refer.
Bit I will never subsribe to the old (from the 60s) myth that this has anything to do with the "white man" or world religions.
We might also agree that the current world wide system of global corporate capitalism is highly problematic. But then we have to ask compared to what.?
Was monarchy better? How about feudalism? Communism didnt do to well either, nor did fascism. A spiritual system sounds like a great idea. How would that work exactly? And, um whose spiritual system would it be? And how would that be decided?
I might mention that it was in fact a spiritual system that saved Europe from its terrible dark ages, when only extreme violence and lawlessness was the rule of life. The spiritual system was Christianity.
It could be mine ... the BET (+=-) ... if people understood it better they would have no problems what-so-ever with it. It would then be by their own choice.
IMnsHO.
Jerry is right of course! The duality is killing us, and I mean that literally - if we continue down that path we will become extinct!! We have to learn to find the middle way and walk it. Trouble is we seem to like competition, think Roman Coliseum. But what if we changed that and tried cooperation? How would the world look without fighting one another to the death for the sport of it, or even for produce. Wouldn't it be lovely to have community gardens, so no one went home hungry? What might happen in the world if the white man stopped trying to force everyone to be like them? Heck Sy, the Native Americans took better care of this earth than the white man has. So why on earth should other cultures follow that lead? Human beings are destructive, and white man keeps leading the way.
Spirituality is allowing everyone to enjoy their experience here, rather than having a system in place that is oppressing someone else so a few can have an overabundance. (I know that's the American way, but....it's too greedy) I don't think there need be a written code for that, or a subscription to someone else's thought pattern.
Wait, I am having a flash back. It is late 1969, and I have just had this conversation. I am driving my taxi in the streets of NY. I have no money, a draft notice in my pocket, I am worried and sick. A Black man and a White woman get into the cab, and start talking about politics. Their topic is the oppression of white men. They ignore me. The Black man, who is wearing the kind of clothes I wont be able to afford for another 20 years, is waxing eloquent about the need for Black militancy in the face of white dominance. The woman is replying with the need for women to reject heterosexuality whcih an institutionalized form of new slavery. The fare is $12. They leave me a quarter tip.
This vignette is meaningless, because we all have stories and we all see what we see, and have seen. It is all real, but it is also all illusory. That is why the study of history is so important. Of course we live in an age where Europeans and their descendants are dominant. This has been true for centuries. So why is the white man so evil, Rosa? Is it genetic? it is a racial gender thing? Is everyone else good, by comparison? Is it the fault of Christianity? You ask me to open my eyes. I ask you the same thing. Take off your blinders. A lot has happened since 1969, there is a lot to see.
That could be a big part of the problem as I see it ... the concept of Christianity that is dualistic (+/-) ... that being the exoteric concept which has become the dominate world orthodoxy of social interactions ... contrary to the esoteric preaching of Jesus himself.
IMnsHO
History tells many stories ... many are severely "edited" and many others are completely left out ... today there are books out such as those of John Perkins ... "The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" that tell any interested readers of some of what is really going on in this world by those who have that wealth and thus the ability to make things go their way ... one of the major causes of the 9/11 attacks even ... hatreds due to the abuse of 3rd world peoples by "Our Economic Might" ... etc etc etc ....
I agree with what you have said about Christianity also. I believe both church and state dominate socialization in order to brainwash and control the masses. (Picture the Pope on a balcont overlooking the masses and President at a podium - same stuff).
Mudras like taking the attitudes of God when Sufi dancing are mnemonics to bring consciousness of that to mind. In the case of Sufi dancing, the celebrants assume postures while chanting each of the attribute's powers, theater art in a physically literal sense. Assuming the poses, the dancer assumes those attributes of God. Purely spiritual theater, the better the actor/dancer/chanter, the more spiritual and Godly.
That's been historically true but I believe there's a slow but inevitable shift to where that dominance is now being challenged by the rest of the world's populations demanding equality. The whites so challenged with losing their dominance and powers are pushing back with fear and a gradual acceptance. In the US we see our laws work towards equality. In other parts of the world that don't observe rules of law and constitutional rights, the battle for those in power of all colors is much more problematic but will also probably give way to more democratic ways. Do you think so too?
Yes, power and territorial aggrandizement have been historic constants. What is interesting to ponder is why some cultures and leaders so aggressively turn to war to achieve those objectives. That's the real downside of nationalism and smooth rhetoric that promotes it. Can we also mention high birth rates and populations that necessitate more turf and resources? Humanity needs to address those problematic issues if there is any hope of resolving agression between nations and peoples.
Hope you and yours are well. Aloha, namaste, Frank
I think we can lay blame to any nation, institution or people who would exploit others for their advantage need to overpower the oppositon they're faced with. That effort to dominate is usually carried out by any means. As the saying goes, all's fair in love and war and this usually entails behaving evilly. When in childhood we learn to aggress to get our ways, it starts there, no? The greater the stakes, the more determindly evil the means become.
I agree with you, but that doesnt answer my question to Rosa, as to why it happens to be white men who are gulty of such aggression. Of course I have known some pretty aggressive people who didnt happen to be white men, but I guess Rosa hasnt.
I dont really like that phrase about love and war. It shows an ignorance of the nature of war, which has nothing in common with love.
When you compare, as a whole, the races of men, you will generally find that the "white-man" is comparatively "conservative" and very "industrious" ... probably having to do with the latitudes they live in where seasons dictate industry to prepare for and survive winters ... (lets leave the "Eskimos" out of the equation as they are such comparative few in number) ... the darker skinned races in living nearer to tropical conditions have more "easy pickings" when it comes to food gathering, they thus are more "laid back" (liberal) as a whole, taking each day as it comes ...
I have no doubt that you can argue the point Aniko, but that is the way I see it and my opinion is as good as anyones ... :-) (+=-)>(+/-)
The "darker skinned" "conquestors" probably learned their lessons from the white ones who perfected it first ... :-)
The theory that the "white race" is more industrious because of the harsh winters is an old one (it was certainly the orthodox view in Europe not very long ago). But it's a very easy one to falsify with a quick look at history and geography--it isn't just the Eskimos, Jerry. Almost all the data shows otherwise. (Certainly, an area as huge as Siberia should have produced a supercivilization!) This is basically an ad hoc theory to explain a single case of sped-up development: Europe--and European civilization did not originate in Europe.
The first "civilizations" (complex agriculture-based societies, with division of labor, social classes, and, yes, invariably territorial expansion and conquest/assimilation of other tribes) all emerged in the warm regions of the earth (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Indus Valley, Central America), and well, those people weren't "white". It was those civilizations that then spread to the temperate regions. The origin of our most important domesticated plants and animals, our writing, and of course our religions clearly shows this. (The same south-to-north, or more exactly, tropical-to-temperate, pattern can be seen in North America: the corn and squash the Cherokee planted had been domesticated in Central America.)
The "white race" is a latecomer in the civilization-and-conquest game, and that seems like a fact to me, not an opinion. The point I'm trying to make, of course, is that this "race" is neither genetically more "industrious" (or, as some would say, more intelligent), nor more "evil" than the others. Then again, of course, we already know that races don't exist in a biological sense, so the question itself is probably wrong.
As before, I recommend Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel as an excellent synthesis of insights from many different disciplines to answer questions about different rates of development in different parts of the earth.
I agree that humanity began in more tropical zones (latitudes) and expanded out from there ... but still, the expansion required more "fortitude" the further they went ... as for Siberia ... or Alaska, etc. ... possibly their day of growth is yet to come ... more than just likely I would suspect because as we (the "white-man") develop, the climatic challenges will become less and less ... IMnsHO.
(I have some issues with Collapse, too, but they're off-topic here.)
NPR's Science Friday program (online NPR > Alternate energy > Meeting The Nation's Bioenergy Goals) discusses the up-to-date as of April development of alternate energy.
Burton Richter, 1976 winner of Nobel Prize in physics, discussed his take on the various attempts to produce ethanol. He believes switch grass is a preferable source rather than the prevailing source of corn. Grass is easier to break down cellulose and isn't a food source. I wish I could remember where I heard the program Dr. Richter was on presenting his rating of the various sources.
Anyone hear that radio show?
If I recall correctly, the team has a bio-engineered version of switch grass that should convert well to fuel. However, the problem with bio-engineered plants is that you have to make sure they won't hybridize with their wild counterparts, so I think they are studying that at the moment.
(Sorry, I couldnt resist).
Can anyone think of what would be a downside unintended consequence for hybridized switch grass? I can't think there would be much to worry about but I'm not up on those things.
As a matter of fact, it's very important to preserve the wild ancestors of our crop species. This is because our crop plants are quite genetically uniform, and if a new predator or pest comes along, they are unlikely to have much resistance. (Their parents, on the other hand are more likely to have some resistance because they are genetically diverse).
(Consider the case of the American chestnut, nearly extinct due to the blight, but also on the verge of a managed comeback because researchers have managed to incorporate a few genes of the Chinese chestnut (blight resistant) into it).
(End of biology lesson!)
You can dig that it was drastically dangerous. I can bet most French supported the underground but weren't "actively involved". Most were not cut out to be so bravely courageous but in their hearts despised the Nazis and were all united in beating them.
Wikipedia has an exhaustive entry re: WWII casualties and several books are on Amazon but nothing I could find re: your query. I can imagine the stats are probably sketchy at best but who knows, maybe somebody's done the homework. I imagine every country had active resistance fighters who risked their lives for the love of their countries and hatred of the Nazis.
I don't know where that 2% data came from. By its nature, the French resistance was secret, and people only knew of very few contacts, so it's not like it would have been easy to confirm someone's activity after the war. I don't think there's any point in talking about such numbers--the only way to ""measure" these movements would be by what was accomplished, and perhaps how many people were arrested/killed/made to disappear.
It's probably true, of course, that most people had surviving as their main objective (and had enough trouble doing that). We might even argue that in some situations, survival itself is an act of resistance.
On the other side of Europe, the Soviets tried, with various success rates to control partisan movements in Russia, Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe. The most successful of all partisan movements were the Yugoslavs, who were never actually beaten by the Germans. The Greek resistance was extremely active but was crushed with terrible loss of life. With the fall of the Fascist governmnet in Italy in 1943, anti fascist (largely communist) partisans fought bravely but with little success against the German take over of ITaly.
In Denmark the resistance was passive, but very effective, taking the form of non compliance with German law. The Norwegian resistance, while small was of considerable importance in aiding Allied efforts.
Poland had several large and well organized resistance movements, including one pro Soviet communist, and one anti Soviet nationalist (Home Army) groups. Toward the end they were fighting each other, and we know which one won.
There were much smaller attempts at resistance in Holland, Chechoslovakia, and the other Balkans states.
The causalty rate among resistance fighters was enormous, sometimes over 80%. Even worse, an attack by partisans against German troops was generally met with a massacre of the local civilian population, so that support for the partisans was often withheld. In parts of Eastern Europe, partisans had to fight farmers for food and supplies.
I doubt there has even been a more courageous, more self sacrificing, and more noble movement in history than that of the anti Nazi resistance in Europe. They fought against tremendous odds, with little hope of survival. They were all saints, in that regard, (see the wonderful article by Patrick Kennedy on the extension of Ann's post on saints). They performed miracles on a daily basis, and they kept a small flame of humanity burning in the midst of mind numbing darkness.
I have known two of them. It was a great honor to have met them, and I pray they rest in peace.
You already know this, but for others, there is an interesting trend that happened in Europe in those countries that were originally fascist allies of Germany, including Italy, Hungary and Romania. Because they were allied with Germany they were not invaded by the Germans until much later in the war (1943 or 44). This meant that the resistance in these countries was mostly political anti fascist, rather than national anti German occupation. Once the Germans invaded ITaly and Hungary, partisan groups formed in both countries to fight the invaders.
As another side note, the country in Europe with the highest percentage of surviving Jews (I believe almost one third survived, which is far higher than any other nation except Denmark) was Hungary. The Hungarian government, while fascist and pro German, did not follow the lead of Germany in its occupied lands, and it was only starting in 1944, after the invasion of Hungary by German troops, that Hungarian Jews began to be sent to extermination camps. Among them was the writer Elie Wiesel, who survived Auchwitz.
The fact that Hungarian Jews were not deported to camps until the German occupation has led to claims on the part of some Hungarians that it was Germans and Germans alone who were responsible for the Hungarian portion of the Holocaust. This is of course not true--the German occupation put the serious Hungarian fascists in power (the previous bunch were the "lite" version), and they were the actual people behind the day-to-day operations.
One takeaway: There are those who are perceptive but not self-perceptive.
Writing a memoir requires you to become so if you are honest and a good writer. You discover the meaning of your life if you succeed in writing a good memoir. I think the effort has value for you even if you don't consider publishing.
Ms. Peterson made so many interesting and perceptive remarks. She points out that the number of Americans who believe in The Rapture far outnumber those who beieve in Evolution. !!
The expression "pushing the envelope" has become such a cliche but it expresses the American penchant for novelty and a cocky iconoclastic attitude of those involved in creative pursuits. Those dealing with thus-far unknowns carve out and create another piece of Reality as they succeed in their discoveries. It's not given to just anyone but the elite ones who do important work in revealing Truth push back the very boundaries of Reality.
It's like you say plus a burning obsessive curiosity that impels them to scratch that itch. That pursuit of new knowledge sometimes does require the courage to dare to continue the experiments and projects despite repercussions that may include penalties and maybe being put to death, as we have seen historically and even now in repressive cultures.
I used to get tons of them but no more. I don't read the entire threads every day so I can't monitor posts to respond. I asked Kevin about this but what's up with not getting the notices anymore?
Then too, everything you want to receive notices from has to have the box checked, friends posts and group posts, as well as comments. For example: On my friend settings I can check the box that tells me everything you comment on, and whatever you post. Or I can just check all the boxes for LYR and see what everyone is saying here. Obviously I don't have everything check, lol, it would be hard for me to keep up.
These anti-society jerks are usually loners and groups of losers. I think one of their common denominators is that they've lost the feeling of being connected to others, have written off hope of being addressed or trying to resolve their angry and loopy ideas in their fuming isolation.
I wonder if our schools can monitor these individuals with essays assigned with the objective of getting a measure of civil rights, social responsibility and anger? It seems it would be useful though not fail safe in early intervention. What is a big tip-off is the family structure and abuse. where anger is born.
I also was in the position of being disappointedly frustrated that my insightfulness was met with seeming indifference. Then I resigned myself to accept that enlightening others and teaching is that way, you cast the ideas on the wind and hope they may find fertile ground. There are those persuasive and charismatic prophets and teachers successful in that endeavor but as we know they are few chosen and far between. In this age of blogs and the internet we have a chance to disseminate ideas more easily but it doesn't seem to change things much, everyone too preoccupied with their own blogging and ideas to pay any attention except as I mentioned to chosen few.
Keep the faith, your adherence to your vision and principles are the strongest hope for their general acceptance.
Aloha, Frank
Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori
The original peoples of the North American continent understand that we are all connected, and that harm to one part of the sacred circle of life harms the whole. Scientists, both the ecological and physical sorts, know the same reality, expressed in different terms. The Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) also charge human beings with care for the whole of creation, because it is God's good gift to humanity. Another way of saying this is that we are all connected and there is no escape; our common future depends on how we care for the rest of the natural world, not just the square feet of soil we may call "our own." We breathe the same air, our food comes from the same ground and seas, and the water we have to share cycles through the same airshed, watershed, and terra firma.
That should have -- and could have -- been the central narrative drawing all the threads together. The narrative about the daily competence and effort should have been in service of the central narrative of his administration. It should be, and can be, the central narrative of American democracy.
But to make it central and powerful would be confrontational. It would bring him head-to-head with right-wing ideology -- empathy-free, self-interest maximizing, with disdain or even hatred for those seen as lesser beings. It is self-reinforcing: a value-system that above all promotes that value-system itself.
Because that ideology takes precedence over empathy, there will be little or any real bipartisanship with those on the hard-core right. The right is provoking confrontation. It cannot be avoided. The president should be confronting the right-wing on all issues -- not issue-by-issue as a policy wonk, but with the master moral narrative that makes sense of our country's values
I think he's doing as well as can be expected what with the full plate of calamaties clamoring for attn. It's almost beyond human capacity to deal with them all simulaneously and hope he can hold up with the demands he's faced with. I concur with the assertion made in the book "The Power of Collective Thinking", that Obama is the most articulate spokesman for that concept of what I consider the 21st century's and the future's business plan. Without that kind of understanding I think there's not a good understanding of what needs to be done.
We endlessly hear of love and I know you're not talking about love in a superficial way. I submit that Love is the answer to fear and a lot of other ills if that love is compassionate (Agape) and encompasses more than Eros and which I believe is how most think of love, all those love songs and poems. But I submit that though I subscribe to more love, even Eros, that we should speak and act lovingly but don't be too naive and keep our guard up, just in case.
FINDING YOUR OWN INNER GURU with Jeff Brown
Program #3340 - 1 Hour
Jeff Brown holds an M.A. in psychology from Saybrook Institute and is co-founder of the Open Heart Gang, whose first "act of gratitude" is a documentary about the life of Bhagavan Das. He is the author of Soulshaping: A Journey of Self-Creation (North Atlantic Books 2009).
Topics explored in this dialogue:
*Why you may need to nurture your roots before you reach for the sky
*Why your emotional life is intricately woven into your spiritual growth
*How you can find your own purpose in the context of being part of the universal Oneness
*Why a guru's teaching may be more about his or her spiritual path than about yours
*How to open your heart to wisdom
He's a witty wordsmith, coining words like Truth-ache/truth-decay/truth-canal and then losing it completely; Karmageddon; Soul-ebrate; Soul-itude. He has an interesting story, someone who really worked at his attaining higher consciousness.
Recommended.
Their website has photos of their projects, worth a look-see. The radio show talk is also worth listening, very inspiring.
(Speaking of Faith > Rural Studio)
YOUR WORLD ON YOUR PLATE with Geneen Roth
Program #3346 - 1 Hour - Listen Now!
Geneen Roth is a pioneer in the exploration of food issues, emotions, and spirituality. For more than thirty years she has led workshops and appeared on broadcasts such as Oprah, Good Morning America, and 20/20. She is the author of "Women, Food, and God: An Unexpected Path to Almost Everything" (Scribner 2010).
Topics explored in this dialogue:
*The one addiction you can never, ever give up
*How you can dissolve a negative emotion in minutes
*Why you should start enjoying food more-even if you need to eat less
*How you can find all your beliefs sitting right there on your plate
*How your spiritual practice can be a path to losing weight